Dammit I want CMN now!

[Wodin]

Barkhornx1,

I'm definately WEGO only...and it now hits the mark in this respect....still I think a few things to improve but nothing that is important. Realtime is not for me at all. I was very pleased when the good old blue bar made a return.

[Barkhorn1x]

Barkhornx1,

I'm definately WEGO only...and it now hits the mark in this respect....still I think a few things to improve but nothing that is important. Realtime is not for me at all. I was very pleased when the good old blue bar made a return.

Yes, I agree as I believe that, considering the role of the player***, real-time turns into an unrealistic click-fest. Just could not get into ToW for that reason. Well that, and it just seems kind of sterile compared to CM.

***The player must become all the little sergeants/lieutenants/captains for the units in the game - over a sizable battlefield - and to do that effectively you need a bit of time. This is why WEGO is such an effective solution as it allows time for deliberative orders - but builds in simultaneous interaction w/ opposing forces that effects [wrecks ] those best laid plans.

[Michael Emrys]

Oddly enough, or not [or not], I look at the decision of BF to do a modern setting first w/ the new engine as a good one in the sense that the engine is now mature - and I am confident that the design team will take advantage of all those lesssons learned along the way - so that when CM:N ships it will ship w/ minimal bugs and be that much more enjoyable.

I agree. In fact, this is an idea I've been plugging for a couple of years now. I kind of doubt that BFC consciously made that decision (though it is possible), but it worked out that way and in my view we are all the better off for it.

Michael

[Gpig]

ISTR reading a post by Steve (long ago) wherein he stated precisely that. The intention to work out the kinks of the new engine on a more difficult theatre/genre/timeframe (modern war) so that the transition "backward" to WWII would make the game even better.

Gpig

[MikeyD]

Think of it this way. They're starting with CMSF v 1.21 (fourteen major game engine patches) and simply stripping out the ATGMs and body armor... and laser guided bombs... and grenade launchers... and ERA blocks... and probably a half dozen other things besides.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I'm looking forward to things that miss a lot.

[jeffsmith]

ISTR reading a post by Steve (long ago) wherein he stated precisely that. The intention to work out the kinks of the new engine on a more difficult theatre/genre/timeframe (modern war) so that the transition "backward" to WWII would make the game even better.

Gpig

Exactly !!!

[BFCElvis]

I'm looking forward to things that miss a lot.

And rounds that bounce off almost as often as they kill...

[sfhand]

And rounds that bounce off almost as often as they kill...

Hypothetically yes, until the rounds in question are mine...

[Dietrich]

I'm looking forward to hearing "Gebt Sperrfeuer, Männer!!" -- when I suitably mod the German *.wav files, that is.

[Gromit]

ISTR reading a post by Steve (long ago) wherein he stated precisely that. The intention to work out the kinks of the new engine on a more difficult theatre/genre/timeframe (modern war) so that the transition "backward" to WWII would make the game even better.

Gpig

Like his sketches, Gpig is "spot on" once again.

When all of the initial hubbub about the CMx2 engine started up, Steve made it quite clear that the move to a modern setting was done for 2 main reasons:

1) It let them test more modern-type platforms such as rockets, missiles, etc and ensure the new engine could handle them in a way that pleased BF. Why would you create it unless it truly improved capabilities? You can always move backward techs as required for a particular game.

2) A change of pace was needed with respect to genre. After countless years focusing on WW2, I believe Steve felt they would all go bonkers if they had to do another WW2 game after CM1.

There is also the old rule of thumb that says stepping back, taking on a new challenge and then later returning to focus on an earlier subject is the best way to ensure that the second time around will be just that much better for having gone through the exercise. Of course... none of this helps console the WW2 "waiters" much, I'll admit!

[C'Rogers]

I feel like by the time we get to CM:SF 2 people will still be arguing about why they disliked CM:SF 1. By arguing I'm being generous, more likely insults.

At the risk of making myself look follish I'm going to try and sum up the vast arguments lobbied against CM:SF into four points for why some people dislike CM:SF.

1) The modern setting

2) The use of two unequal forces

3) The lack of "good" quick battles

4) A buggy release that some people never came back from

All those are a matter of opinion and, if it is your opinion, you're perfectly justified in not likely the game. The game is designed to do something that you don't enjoy. There is nothing wrong with that, but that shouldn't detract from your opinion of the people that do enjoy it.

I suppose there is also the argument that the game just doesn't "feel right" (the uncanny valley argument). My suspicion was that most people were actually affected by one of the above and used that as there reasoning, but maybe their is something about the interface that just causes a strong disinterest in some people.

For my part I like CM:SF for a totally different reason than I did CMx1. There was an argument here about how people took the time to create countless scenarios for CMx1. For the life of me I can't figure out why. Of the hundreds of games I played (I know, a low count for some) I played two scenarios and each time wondered why I bothered. Initially I fell into the category for CM:SF that hated the game because of how QBs are done. I still don't play the game multiplayer much, but find the single player infinitely better than CMx1.

[Scipio]

1. In terms of bug fixes, CMN is being built using the CMSF 1.21 code, which has been worked on and improved for the 3 years since release. It is stable and very bug free for a commercial game, so we are already far ahead of the original release of CMx2.

2. since the majority of customers only play single player mode, you need a number of scenarios and campaigns to keep their interest, so both are also required in the retail release.

3. even for the minority that enjoys multiplayer, you need a number of historical/semi-historical scenarios for players who do not enjoy gamey, artificial QBs.

4. finally, you will have cherry-picking QBs for the ladder PBEM players.

so, there is not really anything that can be cut from the initial release of CMN.

I disagree. About points 2. and 3.: Multiplayer/H2H-gaming of all kinds is the increasing market in the computer games segment. QBs are from my experience the best way to create somewhat ballanced scenarios, and this is important for H2H games. QBs are artificial, maybe, but that must be said about chess, too; a rather successful game, AFAIK. Beside that, a working QB system increases the replayability of a game, even for single players, much more than any originally shipped scenario or CM campaign can do. I wrote CM campaign, because the CM campaign system is technically ridiculous, with all respect. So in short words, a working QB system would be IMO much wiser than CM campaign.

About 4.: The problem of the CMSF QB system is not that cherry picking is excluded. The point is that the automatic troop generation is working so poor in CMSF that I call it 'broken', not even bugged. I think it's wrong to restrict the group of affected players/customers on ladder players only.

[Jonny(FGM)]

About 4.: The problem of the CMSF QB system is not that cherry picking is excluded. The point is that the automatic troop generation is working so poor in CMSF that I call it 'broken', not even bugged. I think it's wrong to restrict the group of affected players/customers on ladder players only.

how very true. how many times have i wanted to practice my inf attacking skills so set something up in the QB and ended up with a load of humvees. I never use the QB generator anymore for this reason.

Its a shame because it's one of the areas that has gone backwards from CMx1 (there are quite a lot of them IMO) because I play a lot of AI pick CMx1 battles so they have got it right in the past.

[Sgt Joch]

I disagree. About points 2. and 3.: Multiplayer/H2H-gaming of all kinds is the increasing market in the computer games segment. QBs are from my experience the best way to create somewhat ballanced scenarios, and this is important for H2H games. QBs are artificial, maybe, but that must be said about chess, too; a rather successful game, AFAIK. Beside that, a working QB system increases the replayability of a game, even for single players, much more than any originally shipped scenario or CM campaign can do. I wrote CM campaign, because the CM campaign system is technically ridiculous, with all respect. So in short words, a working QB system would be IMO much wiser than CM campaign.

according to BFC, most of the customers who purchase CM games of all ilk play mostly or exclusively against the AI. I do not have access to those statistics, so take their word for it, although if you compare the total sales to the number of players who belong to gaming clubs or play multiplayer, it makes sense.

regarding QBs, every one has their own opinion and personal preference. QBs exist to allow players to setup a quick game using pre-made/random maps with arbitrary point totals. They do what they achieve, but I never saw one that was anywhere as good as a well designed hand crafted scenario.

About 4.: The problem of the CMSF QB system is not that cherry picking is excluded. The point is that the automatic troop generation is working so poor in CMSF that I call it 'broken', not even bugged. I think it's wrong to restrict the group of affected players/customers on ladder players only.

agreed. The QB system is being revamped for CMN to be closer to the CMx1 system.

[Redwolf]

according to BFC, most of the customers who purchase CM games of all ilk play mostly or exclusively against the AI.

How can you tell that your game is single played as opposed to not played at all (with or without a little snooping around at the beginning when the person first got the game)?

[MeatEtr]

How can you tell that your game is single played as opposed to not played at all (with or without a little snooping around at the beginning when the person first got the game)?

I don't think it's possible to accurately track how many play MP compared to AI. Like other games, CMSF doesn't have servers running with players coming and going to easily track how many play MP. It's a common trend with most PC games that the vast majority only play solo against the AI.

But they could get a more accurate idea with a poll along with maybe a tech survey to see where their customers are at tech-wise.

[Jonny(FGM)]

It's a common trend with most PC games that the vast majority only play solo against the AI.

But CM (IMO) has never been (and hopefully will never be) like "most" PC games, and likewise i think it attracts a special type of player.

[MeatEtr]

But CM (IMO) has never been (and hopefully will never be) like "most" PC games, and likewise i think it attracts a special type of player.

I agree, but the trend still goes for CMSF, even BF acknowledges this and they have the sales numbers too.

[Michael Emrys]

Beside that, a working QB system increases the replayability of a game, even for single players, much more than any originally shipped scenario or CM campaign can do.

I have to chime in to agree with this. I played CMx1 exclusively solitaire and mostly QBs. I played a couple campaigns and several scenarios. The scenarios were mostly not satisfying and the campaigns were to a greater or lesser extent excruciatingly frustrating. The QB system mostly worked well for me within the overall limitations of the game, especially once I worked out how to manipulate it to my satisfaction. I suppose that could be described as something in between a vanilla QB and a scenario, having the ease of the former and some of the fine-tuning of the latter.

Michael

[Scipio]

... It's a common trend with most PC games that the vast majority only play solo against the AI. ...

As far as I know, the trend is going to multiplayer/online games. That doesn't necessarily have be true for CM and other tactical/stratic wargames, even if many have some kind of H2H included. I sometimes wonder if the point here is the uninterested player, or a programming and marketing strategy that concentrates on single players and is missing the potential.

No board game developer would ever have the idea to develop a single player game .

[Michael Emrys]

No board game developer would ever have the idea to develop a single player game .

Huh? I'm not familiar with the current situation, but during the '70s and '80s there were a small number of games published that could only be played solitaire (Wolfpack from SPI comes readily to mind), and most companies were aware that a substantial portion of their games were being played solitaire and tried to accommodate that market.

Of course once PCs entered the scene, solitaire gameplaying really took off because now one did not have to find an opponent; one had an opponent already, patiently waiting for battle at the owner's convenience.

Michael

[Pvt. Ryan]

For CMBO, if I wanted a quick game on a relatively small map I played Quick Battles. If I wanted a long game on a large, well designed map I played scenarios or operations. From what we have heard, CMN will have the best of both since QBs will use pre-made maps with forces chosen by the player, plus the option to play scenarios and operations. I anticipate the CM community will design a plethora of custom maps for CMN.

[Sgt Joch]

But CM (IMO) has never been (and hopefully will never be) like "most" PC games, and likewise i think it attracts a special type of player.

..."special" is an understatement...

[Kanonier Reichmann]

---SNIP---

No board game developer would ever have the idea to develop a single player game .

Hmmmm, lemme see....

Wolfpack!

B17 Queen of the Skies

Achtung Spitfire!

Ambush!

Gung Ho!

Pattons Best

... to name but a few. But now that I've spotted your smiley I assume you were being fecetious!

Regards

KR